From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riley v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Feb 2, 1932
139 So. 576 (Ala. Crim. App. 1932)

Opinion

8 Div. 489.

February 2, 1932.

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Lauderdale County; Orlan B. Hill, Jr., Judge.

Wiley Riley was convicted of unlawfully possessing two jugs of whisky, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Bradshaw Barnett, of Florence, for appellant.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State


Defendant was convicted on a charge of unlawfully possessing two jugs of whisky, and he appeals.

The evidence for the state has been read and considered. We find no sufficient evidence to connect the defendant with the possession of the whisky charged in the indictment. It is manifest that this conviction was predicated upon suspicion, conjecture, or surmise. As has been many times held, this is not sufficient to sustain a conviction for crime. Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283, 101 So. 511; Shepard's Ann., Vol. XVI, No. 2, p. 115, Subdiv. 283.

The motion for new trial should have been granted, and for the error in refusing this motion the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Other questions need not be decided.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Riley v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Feb 2, 1932
139 So. 576 (Ala. Crim. App. 1932)
Case details for

Riley v. State

Case Details

Full title:RILEY v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Feb 2, 1932

Citations

139 So. 576 (Ala. Crim. App. 1932)
24 Ala. App. 594

Citing Cases

McKinney v. State

The evidence was not sufficient to prove appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and there was error in…

Lyons v. State

Mere suspicion, surmise, or conjecture will not sustain conviction. McKinnon v. State, 24 Ala. App. 537, 137…